The issue of concurrent jurisdictions and the route that a matter will take just doesn’t seem to want to be settled. Kind of funny in a way: finality just won’t come to the problem of settling finality in this arena of decision making.

Here is another case, Smith v. Canadian National Railway, [2005] C.H.R.D. No. 19, that deals with the issue of competing jurisdiction between arbitration and a human rights body. The case gives a complete and brief synopsis of the state of law in this area and outlines the Danyluk argument.

For perhaps, the wrong reasons, the result in this case is that you get to make your argument at arbitration and do it over again in front of the human rights body.

I’m just waiting for the day when an arbitrator tells someone they can’t go back to work and the following administrative tribunal orders an employer to take that person back.